Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-03-28
PRO AND con.
Exile ute n ant. Governor Gibbs vs.. Hon. t
K Bonner on Prohibition.
C,,a1taI 20

Ex. Lisutenant. Governor Gibbs VS.. Hon. t.
Z Bonner on Prohibition.
Special to the Gazette.
WACO, TEX, March 27.-Ex-Lieuten-
ant GovernorIGibbs, after tarrying here q
day, has gone on to Austin. He is
strong ti-prohibition, land is con-
ident that North Texas will give
majority of at least 25 900
against it, and that the majority
south of Corsicana will be at least $4,000
! sgainst it, provided the thing is discussed
and the people aroused to the Importance
OF the political principles involved.
In reply to 8 question by the re-
porter, he said that in April there would
certainly be held a large anti.prohibi-
ton convention, and that every pre-
cinct would be organized and can
Vassed. You see, said he, Texas is
the pivotal state, and if carried
by the Prohibitionists will drive hundreds
of thousands of Democrats out of the
party in the northern and western
states. Ii prohibition is engrafted in
the constitution, it then becomes a
declared political principle, adopted
| by the banner Democratic state, IN the
face of repeated declarations to the
contrary by national conventions of
the Democracy. If Texas abandons
local option, which is recognized
everywhere as mere public regula-
ton, and adopts state prohibition,
: how can it keep in line with the ma
tional party? The Republicans under
stand this, and are active prohibitions
lists, although always opposing local
option, as it couldn't be used for po-
liticsl purposes like prohibition consti-
tutiOnal amendment. On the other hand
Hon. 7. r. Bonner, ex Speaker of the
Texas House of Representatives, and
twice the President of State Democratic
conventions, spent to-day here. Colonel
Bonner is as ardent ProhibitiOnist as
Mr.. Gibbs is an "ant," and says, "If
believed that the present movement was
hostile to the Democratic party, or would
endaDger its supremacy. I would
not join in it, but l believe that
prohibition is right, and that the
submission of the prohibition amend
ment is in line with Democratic theory,
and that show no want of fealty to that
party by voting for prohibition.
The evils resulting from the
sale of Intoxicating liquors are ad-
mitted by every one, and as a Demo-
crat l am unwilling to believe that
that party, which in Texas at least, Is
the people, w, uId lend itself to the
maintenance of such an unmitigated
evil, on the idea that such law as prohi-
bition is sumptuary, or a trespass on
personal liberty, or that it aims
at union OF church and state
The sumptuary idea is obsolete; the
personal liberty dodge appeals only to the
ignorant, while the intelligence Cf the
age repudiates the fear of the union
of church and state. A little refec-
ton will show that the great
body of our criminal statutes
restrain personal Iiberty-in fact, while
ours is the freest government in the
world, extending to the individual citi.
zen the largest measure of liberty, still
the very foundation of order
aud the protection of every man
in the pursuit of happiness is laid upon
the doctrine that this liberty must be
regulated by law. The evil being
admitted by every person, the ques-
ton is, shall the government, in
the exercise of it's police powers, forbid
it? The power to regulate the traffic is
not denied, and this power carries with it
the power to prohibit ito abolish it."